lrfd

67 %
33 %
Information about lrfd
Entertainment

Published on December 28, 2007

Author: Natalya

Source: authorstream.com

Seismic Design of Bridges :  Seismic Design of Bridges Lucero E. Mesa, P.E. Slide2:  AASHTO - Division IA Draft Specifications, 1996 SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs. SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps Training and Implementation Conclusions SCDOT Seismic Design Of Bridges Overview Slide3:  USGS 1988 Seismic Hazard Maps Force based design Soil Classification I-IV No explicit Performance Criteria Classification based only on acceleration coefficient AASHTO Div IA Slide4:  CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA August 31, 1886 (Intensity IX-X) Earthquake of August 31, 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Magnitude=7.3M, Intensity = X:  Earthquake of August 31, 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Magnitude=7.3M, Intensity = X Slide7:  1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps Difference in spectral acceleration between South Carolina and California Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50 yr. Event Essential Bridges: Two-Level Analysis Draft Specifications Slide8:  Force based specifications N (seat width) Soil classification: I – IV Draft Specifications Version of 1999 Draft Specifications Slide9:  Maybank Bridge over the Stono River Carolina Bays Parkway Broad and Chechessee River Bridges New Cooper River Bridge Bobby Jones Expressway Site Specific Studies Slide10:  SC-38 over I-95 - Dillon County Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River - Charleston County SEISMIC DESIGN TRIAL EXAMPLES Slide11:  SC-38 over I-95 Description of Project Conventional bridge structure Two 106.5 ft. spans with a composite reinforced concrete deck, supported by 13 steel plate girders and integral abutments The abutments and the interior bents rest on deep foundations Slide12:  Original Seismic Design SCDOT version of Div-IA AASHTO (Draft) 2/3 of 2% in 50 yr 1996 USGS maps used PGA of 0.15g, low potential for liquefaction Response Spectrum Analysis Trial Design Example Proposed LRFD Seismic Guidelines MCE –3% PE in 75 yr. Expected Earthquake – 50% PE in 75 yr. 2000 USGS maps PGA of 0.33g, at MCE, further evaluation for liquefaction is needed. Response Spectrum Analysis SC-38 over I-95 Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River :  Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River Slide15:  118 spans 1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP 63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns per bent supported by shafts. The main span over the river channel consists of a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center span. 105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP Maybank Highway over Stono River Description of project Slide16:  Original Seismic Design SCDOT version of AASHTO Div. I-A (Draft) Site Specific Seismic Hazard Bridge classified as essential Project specific seismic performance criteria Two level Analysis: FEE – 10% in 50 yr. event SEE - 2% in 50 yr. event Trial Design Example Proposed LRFD Guidelines -2002 Two Level Analysis: Expected Earthquake - 50% in 75 yr. MCE – 3% in 75 yr. Maybank Highway over Stono River Slide18:  Original Seismic Design Soil Classification: Type II Trial Design Example Stiff Marl classified as Site Class D Maybank Highway over Stono River Slide19:  The SCDOT 's new specifications adopted the NCHRP soil site classification and the Design Spectra described on LRFD 3.4.1 If this structure were designed using the new SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications, October 2001, the demand forces would be closer if not the same to those found using the Proposed LRFD Guideline -2002 . Cooper River Bridge Charleston Co.:  Cooper River Bridge Charleston Co. Seismic Design Criteria- Seismic Panel Synthetic TH PGA - 0.65g Sa 1.85 at T=0.2 sec Sa 0.65 at T=1 sec Liquefaction Slide22:  Cooper River Bridge 2500 Yr - SEE for Main Piers Need for::  New Specifications South Carolina Seismic Hazard Maps Need for: Slide25:  The new SCDOT specifications establish design and construction provisions for bridges in South Carolina to minimize their susceptibility to damage from large earthquakes. SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY (1.1):  PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY (1.1) SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications replace AASHTO Division I-A SCDOT Draft Principles used for the development Small to moderate earthquakes, FEE, resisted within the essentially elastic range. State-of-Practice ground motion intensities are used. Large earthquakes, SEE, should not cause collapse. Four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are defined to cover the variation in seismic hazard of very small to high within the State of South Carolina. Slide27:  New Design Level Earthquakes New Performance Objectives New Soil Factors Displacement Based Design Expanded Design Criteria for Bridges New Concepts and Enhancements Slide28:  Small to Moderate Earthquakes Essentially Elastic No Significant Damage Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE) or 10% in 50 yr. event SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 Slide29:  Large Earthquakes Life Safety No Collapse Serviceability Detectable and Accessible Damage Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) or 2% in 50 yr. event SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 Slide30:  New USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps New Design Level Earthquakes New Performance Objectives A706 Reinf. Steel New Soil Factors Displacement Based Design Caltrans (SDC) new provisions included SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications Background (1.2) Slide31:  New Provisions meet current code objectives for large earthquakes. Life Safety Serviceability Design Levels Single Level – 2% / 50 years Normal Bridges Essential Bridges Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50 years Critical Bridges Upgraded Seismic Design Requirement (1.3) Slide32:  SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications Seismic Performance Criteria III II I Slide33:  SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORT-PERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.3.3A):  VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORT-PERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.3.3A) Slide36:  SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE CLASS A, B, C, D AND E, 5% DAMPING (3.4.5E):  DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE CLASS A, B, C, D AND E, 5% DAMPING (3.4.5E) SDI-SEE APPLICABILITY (3.1):  APPLICABILITY (3.1) New Bridges Bridge Types Slab Beam Girder Box Girder Spans less than 500 feet Minimum Requirements Additional Provisions are needed to achieve higher performance for essential or critical bridges DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGIES:  DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGIES Specifications can be used in conjunction with rehabilitation, widening, or retrofit SPC B demands are compared implicitly against capacities Criteria is focused on member/component deformability as well as global ductility Inherent member capacities are used to resist higher earthquake intensities Using this approach required performance levels can be achieved in the Eastern US Slide40:  Design Approaches (4.7.1) Slide41:  Plastic Hinge Region Lpr (4.7.7) Plastic Hinge Length (4.7.7) Seat Width SPC A and B, C, D (4.8.2) Detailing Restrainers (4.9.3) Butt Welded Hoops Superstructrure Shear Keys (4.10) Other New Concepts and Improvements Seismic Design of Bridges :  Seismic Design of Bridges Lucero E. Mesa, P.E. Thanks

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Steel design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The two design methods are related through the Ω factor of ASD and the φ factor of LRFD. While these factors have different uses, ...
Read more

LRFD - Structures - Bridges & Structures - Federal Highway ...

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-4000
Read more

LRFD - What does LRFD stand for? The Free Dictionary

Acronym Definition; LRFD: Load & Resistance Factor Design: LRFD: Long Reach Fire Department (Long Reach, New Brunswick, Canada)
Read more

Load and Resistance Factor Design - Eriksson Technologies

Technical support, information and news on the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.
Read more

Comparing LRFD vs ASD - A Beginner's Guide to Structural ...

Section 2.3. Comparing LRFD & ASD Results. Last Revised: 11/04/2014. LRFD and ASD loads are not directly comparable because they are used differently by ...
Read more

LRFD Load Combinations - A Beginner's Guide to Structural ...

Section 2.2. The Load Combination Equations. Last Revised: 11/04/2014. ASCE 7-05 provides load combination equations for both LRFD and ASD. The ones that ...
Read more

Introduction to LRFD, Loads and Loads Distribution

Introduction to LRFD 1-1 Introduction to LRFD, Loads and Loads Distribution Thomas K. Saad, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Chicago, IL Evolution of Design
Read more

Bridge Design Manual - LRFD - Search

Bridge Design Manual - LRFD i TxDOT 03/2013 Table of Contents Chapter 1 — About this Manual Section 1 — Introduction ...
Read more

LRFD Design Examples - LRFD - Structures - Bridges ...

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-4000
Read more